June 5, 2013Archbishop Gerhard Muller was using the false premise : here is the proof!There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II.One is rational and in agreement with Tradition.The other is irrational and a break with Tradition.The rational one says all need to convert into the Catholic Church.The irrational one says not all but only those who know about Jesus and have had the Gospel preached to them, who need to enter the Church or be damned.

The rational interpretation would cite Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II and say all need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. They would need to enter the Church visibly; with visible Catholic Faith and visible baptism of water.This is in agreement with Tradition, the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.The irrational interpretation could cite Ad Gentes 7 and claim that all need to enter the Church who know. Only those who know.

There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II.One is rational and in agreement with Tradition.The other is irrational and a break with Tradition.

The rational one says all need to convert into the Catholic Church.The irrational one says not all but only those who know about Jesus and have had the Gospel preached to them, who need to enter the Church or be damned.The rational interpretation would cite Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II and say all need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. They would need to enter the Church visibly; with visible Catholic Faith and visible baptism of water.This is in agreement with Tradition, the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.The irrational interpretation could cite Ad Gentes 7 and claim that all need to enter the Church who know. Only those who know.

Archbishop Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican is using the irrational interpretation which is a break from Tradition. It can be seen from this interview he gave the National Catholic Register.

NCR:Do you, nevertheless, accept there’s been a weakening of the Church’s teaching because of this underlying confusion of terminology? One example sometimes cited is that the teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” seems to have become less prominent.

Archbishop Gerhard Muller:That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress/#ixzz2VLejK3GH

When Archbishop Muller said 'The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved' he was implying that this was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

If this was an exception then it was a case known to him. Only if it was a known case could it be an exception to every one needing to convert into Church.In other words he could name someone who did not have to enter the Church for salvation.

LG 14 does not state that these cases are visible to us. Neither does it state that these cases are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So where is the magisterial text which supports the Archbishop's view when he implies that there are exceptions and so now there is a doctrinal development with regard to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? None! There is no such text to support his view.

He has used the false premise of being able to see the dead saved and then assumes that this is an exception to Tradition in general and in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

As mentioned in a previous post on this blog ,in principle , we accept that those who know would need to enter the Church. In reality we do not know any such case who is saved in 2013.In theory yes. In practise there is no such case known which contradicts Tradition. The irrational interpretation assumes we can judge 'who knows and who does not'. This makes it irrational. Since only God can judge who knows and who is in inculpable ignorance.

The rational interpretation says all need to enter the Church. The irrational one claims there are exceptions to all needing to enter the church.The exceptions are based on being able to know or see the dead, who are now saved in inculpable ignorance.This is not real!

This makes it irrational.We cannot see the dead on earth.The irrational interpretation is also a break with Tradition since it uses the premise of being able to see the dead, then assumes these cases, are known exceptions to Tradition i.e to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.So we can choose between the two interpretations of Vatican Council II one which is rational and in accord with Tradition and the other which is not.

Most people today choose the irrational and non traditional interpretation and they are supported by the liberal media.This is the interpretation of Archbishop Gerhard Muller it can be seen in the interview with the National Catholic Register.

For the CDF Prefect those who know about Jesus and the Church and those in inculpable ignorance are known to him and so they are valid, known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by the Councils, popes and saints over the centuries.So all do not need to enter the Church but only 'those who know'. This is called a doctrinal development by him. It is a development based on the premise of being able to see the dead-saved who are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.

Vatican Council II in itself is traditional just like the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney. We do not know anyone saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in 2013. The added-on irrational premise makes the Council liberal and a break with the past.

Similarly we do not know anyone saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in non Catholic religions (NA 2), a good conscience (LG 16) etc.If we claimed we personally did know these cases, then it would be irrational and a break with Tradition.Then we would have to say not all, but only those who know, need to enter the Catholic Church. The CDF Prefect cannot name any exceptions but he will not say all need to enter the Church -Lionel Andrades

What Archbishop Muller said does not change and could not change what the Council of Florence infallibly and clearly declared that all must end their lives "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" if they wish to go to Heaven. This does not, of course, mean that non-Catholics cannot be saved, only that they cannot be saved where they are. No exceptions. Period, whether known or unknown to the One and Triune God Himself. All must end their lives in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Catholic Church.